First off Premier isn't optimised for G5 where as Photoshop is so that's why you see the G5 being faster. So? Neither may it be optimised for AMDs new offerings either. But it is particularly important for apps to be tuned for the G5 because of the Altivec implementation on the chip working differently to the G4+. Specifically over use of the DST instruction quite common in G4 optimised code can kill Altivec performance on the new chip (see http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn2087.htm l)
Second Word on the Mac has always been slower than on Windows - where it's practically part of the OS. It's also not a particulary high performance app.
Third comparing framerates on Quake with totally different graphics cards. Isn't this more a test of graphics hardware rather than processor and overall system performance?
The AMD systems maybe faster than the G5 but PC World succeeded in choosing some very poor apps to benchmark by - utterly useless.
You also forgot to mention that the series of protocols designed for firewire also allow guaranteed delivery of time-sensitive data. You can reserve a portion of that 400 Mbsp bandwidth for video so you don't drop frames. Oh and yes Firewire 800 exists too.
One use for high bandwidth that was missed is scanning. People who used parallel port connected cheap scanners wouldn't notice - if you've used a nice SCSI flatbed you'll know what I mean. I would mention drum scanners but it would take a very warped mind to create a one of those that connected via USB.
USB 1 was a great interface designed by Intrega for low bandwidth devices such as keyboards, graphics tablets, etc. It was bought by Intel who tried to turn it into a high bandwidth bus.
If the old model is still selling well, why bother introducing a new model at all?
Accually Apple doesn't do this which is yet another reason to admire them. They release new cool stuff because they can and release updated stuff when it's ready. Unlike other certain tech companies they don't sit on updates just because they want to milk as much money from the old tech as possible. Apple leads the market in many ways, a position it wouldn't hold for long if it started doing that.
Perhaps we could stick them all on a huge space craft along with all the hairdressers and telephone sanitisers
Re:The issue wasn't the domain name...
on
Beatles Bite Apple
·
· Score: 1
I believe the World Wrestling Federation got a little cocky and thought they could get away with it even in court. What they didn't count on was the World Wildlife Fund having major backing including patronage from our royal family who have very deep pockets.
Yeah, PC users generally have a hard time understanding that the computer hardware & software are sold as one product by Apple. You're buying a computer that works. No product activation to worry about, no buck passing and finger pointing when you need support.
There is also no such thing as a "full version" of Mac OS like Windows. All boxed copies are upgrades to whatever you got when you bought it. Mac users tend to forget that when they complain about upgrade prices - why isn't there an ungrade price, why do i have to pay full price? er you are buying the upgrade:P
Time is a big factor here, as the article says they've got to finish it by the 1st October for them to enter the super computer rankings for this year.
So although a cluster of X-Serves would make more sense they can't really wait.
You are right, but this is Microsoft we are talking about here. There will probably be an exploit to be found in the auto-updater and hey-presto they will have just added another way for hackers to get malicious code onto a user's machine without the user knowing.
For it to be a good analogy to the IT world there would be many car manufacturers but they'd all get their steering wheels, gearshifts, engine and power train from one one company. One car manufacture would choose to make the entire thing all themselves, and a large dispersed team of engineers would be building their own steering wheels, gearshifts, engine and power train in their spare time 'cos they didn't like the "standard" one.
As one of only 2 PC companies making any money right now I don't understand what you mean.
Oh unless his Steveness is turning himself in to the undead? Wouldn't have to ever stop running Apple then and the reality distortion field can hide the gaunt flesh:P
I swear half the reason I hang out on Slashdot is because of the amusing clueless things people like this guy say.
LCDs are still sensitive to the position of the viewer which can cause problems if you are in an environment where colour is really important. There is still a market for highend CRTs.
[rant] This apparently needs pointing out for those that can't see what I'd assumed was blindingly obvious.
Firstly I wasn't denying that OS X is non-free. I was arguing that the majority of the OS was free (APSL issues aside), which was in contradiction to what you said.
Also the comparison to Redhat was me working with the example already given. Now as for saying it's a flawed comparison that ties in quite nicely with why I think Apple is keeping Quartz non-free.
By keeping the graphical layer of the OS proprietary Apple can control what hardware it runs on. (they also probably didn't want to give MS any help in catching them up on this but that's a side point)
If the entire OS were free then the first thing the open source community would do is port it to Intel and all those commodity boxen. Then we could all watch Apple's hardware sales go down the toilet and become practically a software only company. There's practically no profit to be made in hardware these days unless you're selling huge volume or adding value somehow (like an easy to use, reliable OS for example:P)
With much lower hardware sales (see Apple's experience with the cloning experience as to what would happen) and having no direct control over the OS just how different would Apple be from Redhat given your scenario of a totally free OS X?
I would go as far as saying that Apple still exists because of the symbiotic relationship between the hardware and the OS.
-Plug and Pray on the PC isn't as good as the Mac not because MS don't have as talented engineers, it's mainly because of all the cheap crappy hardware options that have to be supported under Windows. Sometimes less options can be an advantage.
-Apple are able to either bring new technologies to market quicker or exploit and popularise them because they control both hardware and software: software power management, WiFi, Bluetooth, USB (with USB some PCs may have had them before Apple, but practically no-one used it as a connection technology before the iMac)
"Even if Apple was just a software company, why would they need to have the same number of developers? It's only natural that with free software time isn't spent on reinventing the wheel and there's some less work for programmers to do. You don't determine the viability of a business model with the number of employees needed, do you?"
So your message to the Apple shareholders would be: We're going to throw in the towel, practically write off our hardware business and cull our software team since we'll be selling very little apart from support contracts and a few CDs (all the work our programmers do we intend to just give away) So we'll need far less people. So let's just make 10,000 people redundant (and in this economic climate, what's another 10,000 unemployed). We can't guarantee we're going to make more money like this, in fact chances are we won't but at least our OS will be totally free and we'll have stopped a portion of the Open Source community bitching at us.
Sound ridiculous? That's because the suggestion was. [/rant]
You have a funny idea of what constitutes the "vast majority" of an OS if you reckon that most of Apple's OS is closed.
Most of it is in fact open source, Darwin is a complete OS in it's own right. What Apple have chosen not to release into open source is their window client/server Quartz which is understandable if you ask me and a whole load of Apps that ship with the commercial OS which aren't actually part of the OS iTunes, iMovie, etc. The other notable exception that springs to mind is QuickTime, but that would be pretty useless anyway unless the community licensed the Sorensen and MPEG4 codecs used to play and create it's content.
Now maybe you think that Apple can survive like Redhat, the whole PC market in this case only supports that company of ~600 employees (http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/presskit/ fact_sheet.html). How long do you reckon that business model is going to support a company with ~12,000 employees? (http://news.com.com/2100-1040_3-978535.html, those are 2001 figures - I can't be bothered to look through Apple's SEC filings to find out exactly how many employees they currently have)
Now maybe you're just a troll or maybe you're just an impulse poster. Sometimes I wish people would think a little before they post.
I used to sit behind a mac all day as a sys admin. Chatted a lot, drank way too much coffee and played games most of the time. I'd go home and do something else on and odd occasion tinker with my mac for a bit.
Then I made the mistake of taking a job with PCs which paid more money. One of my home macs now lives on my work desk and is the only thing there keeping me sane. There's been talk about disallowing me use of my own machine at work. If this actually happens I'll think i'll start looking for another job.
Incidentally I do have an Ultra Sparc 30 at home also, which if I have the urge to tinker with something gets switched on. Mostly though it along with the PCs at work serves to remind me why I'll never buy anything that isn't at least as good as an Apple.
Ars Technica excells at selling FUD wrapped around plausible sounding and "technical" analysis.
Considering their excellent articles on the G4, G4e, and now the 970. And also on the Mac OS X finder I think many people would disagree with you.
Its one of those things that unless you are proficient in the technical area you won't recognize to be FUD
You should check who actually writes the articles and hangs out on the forums there and what they do.
Many of them are engineers, there are those involved in processor design and also programmers and not small fry either. (Check out the about box in Photoshop then look for Chris Cox at ars he can tell you a thing or two about optimising stuff for altivec and the bandwidth constraints of the old PowerMacs), then take the time catch up on the Perpetual CPU thread GPUL and look at all the analysis done that when Hannibal was able to actually speak to IBM turned out to be almost spot on
Yeah the signal to noise ratio gets pretty low sometimes but it's pretty much self policing and without a moderation system too. There is no doubting that Ars tends to attract a more knowledgable person.
As for being biased Ars, like Slashdot is a hang out for technical peeps, and the old Mac OS didn't register on their radar except as perhaps a thing to make fun of. Things change, the Mac is now interesting to geeks. It may not do what we all want but you can't deny it has an attraction to pull it to pieces and see what makes it tick.
If Apple hadn't stopped their cloning experiments which where at the time killing their own hardware sales then it's questionable whether Apple would still be here.
And we then we wouldn't have had Mac OS X. No Mac OS X, no darwin.
You have a valid point for most geeks, what's the point of using it over Linux or BSD.
One thing I will point out though is that it is a real boon having that entire layer of the OS open if your job is writing things like kext's and device drivers.
Apple Care is essentially an extended warranty with a few frills (good service and extra user technical support). My sister has AppleCare as our local LEA bought it for her with the computer and has found them very helpful
But in the UK even after the manufacturers warranty has expired normally after a year the retailer is liable should your computer develop a fault within 6 years (5 in Scotland) of purchase. This makes all extended warranties here pretty much a total waste of money.
Check out some of the info online. If you have this sort of problem in the UK you can get your local trading standards officer involved too.
I remember reading this too, it could have been from Dave Hyatt's 'blog but I can't be sure. As a source of info on Safari it's reliability is as good as anything direct from Apple him being one of the Safari code team et. al.
The only reason I can think of is for visual HTML editors. They could embed both frameworks for previewing pages without having to load a separate browser.
The machine is an old compaq deskpro with the original slim-line CD drive in it. Can't look at the exact info on the internals until I'm back into work and able to take the lid off it again. It's old and crap but it's what I've been given to work with.
What I'm trying to do is switch over to OO for web dev. The amount of extra work we are making for our selves by not having it is getting silly. Even with some code separated out into libraries it's still procedural and it's still prone to spaghettification as projects evolve. We are developing full blown apps that use a browser front end.
The only options I know of make use of Java: Apache + Tomcat (or other object container) Even Web Objects is now java-based.
I'm not sure what.NET offers along this line of things but I'd rather just not go there.
That's an awful lot of poise to throw around. Your logic appears to be backwards. Companies don't choose to buy NT servers and as a result buy Windows based clients.
Companies buy windows machines to run the apps they feel they need and then buy the most appropriate server to look after them.
Getting open office up to scratch will do more for getting Linux used widespread in businesses than anything else you list.
Also getting your OS used in the server space is not a great overall strategy for growth of that platform as a workstation if as you say the server can serve anything you want.
At work I use PCs and finally persuaded my manager to let me have a box to put Linux or BSD on to use as a platform to test "new" web technologies (that would be Apache 2, Tomcat/Catalina etc) and hopefully show them it's a good way forward to migrate from Windows/IIS as a web development platform.
Now at home I use Mac OS X, and I set this stuff up on my laptop in minutes so I know this all works.
So far I've spent nearly two days trying to install a free UNIX disto on this damn thing. Red Hat 7 (old I know but we had the CDs already) no joy, FreeBSD 5 no luck there either. Slackware 8.1 installs but the JVM download from SUN doesn't work on it and there's no source to compile yourself. RedHat 9 fails to recognise my CD drive, fails to install over ethernet.
This is crap. So far my experience with Linux has been worse than with Windows. If I had the authority to write company cheques and other people in the company weren't so up microsoft's ass I'd get a Mac to use as a server. And this is a company with over 25,000 employees. I can tell you that this experience so far is only going to seal them up even more. If this doesn't work out then they'll follow MS to it's eventual grave, they may even get there first.
Over the past 12 months I've grown to hate the small group of the Linux using population for whom Linux is "just about to stomp over everything, any day now". They've become more irritating than the equally small number of old vocal Mac zealots. But at least they truly have something to sound off about now.
Point is Mac OS X is not doing any major damage to Microsoft's bottom line and nor is Linux.
I think we all realise here that Microsoft can't sustain itself indefinitely doing business the way it is but it's a huge company, it's not going to be quick and it's not going to go quietly.
They didn't improve it. It's actually a step backwards. The original Blue and White G3 towers and Graphite G4 towers had the best casing design for access. The entire motherboard was mounted on the side that folded down like a trapdoor. It was also securable with a padlock through a bolt at the back.
The new G5 tower is a move back to the motherboard being on the opposite side meaning you have to bury your hands in a box full of components like your average "easy" access PC case.
Slashdot Mirror
First off Premier isn't optimised for G5 where as Photoshop is so that's why you see the G5 being faster. So? Neither may it be optimised for AMDs new offerings either. But it is particularly important for apps to be tuned for the G5 because of the Altivec implementation on the chip working differently to the G4+. Specifically over use of the DST instruction quite common in G4 optimised code can kill Altivec performance on the new chip (see http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn2087.htm l)
Second Word on the Mac has always been slower than on Windows - where it's practically part of the OS. It's also not a particulary high performance app.
Third comparing framerates on Quake with totally different graphics cards. Isn't this more a test of graphics hardware rather than processor and overall system performance?
The AMD systems maybe faster than the G5 but PC World succeeded in choosing some very poor apps
to benchmark by - utterly useless.
You also forgot to mention that the series of protocols designed for firewire also allow guaranteed delivery of time-sensitive data. You can reserve a portion of that 400 Mbsp bandwidth for video so you don't drop frames. Oh and yes Firewire 800 exists too.
One use for high bandwidth that was missed is scanning. People who used parallel port connected cheap scanners wouldn't notice - if you've used a nice SCSI flatbed you'll know what I mean. I would mention drum scanners but it would take a very warped mind to create a one of those that connected via USB.
USB 1 was a great interface designed by Intrega for low bandwidth devices such as keyboards, graphics tablets, etc. It was bought by Intel who tried to turn it into a high bandwidth bus.
A lot of spiders have 8 eyes but some have less - they are normally in pairs though ;)
Typically they have different types of eyes for different functions - spotting wide angle movement, tracking prey, low-light detection
Accually Apple doesn't do this which is yet another reason to admire them. They release new cool stuff because they can and release updated stuff when it's ready. Unlike other certain tech companies they don't sit on updates just because they want to milk as much money from the old tech as possible. Apple leads the market in many ways, a position it wouldn't hold for long if it started doing that.
Not to mention that if he turned sideways you wouldn't be able to see him.
Perhaps we could stick them all on a huge space craft along with all the hairdressers and telephone sanitisers
I believe the World Wrestling Federation got a little cocky and thought they could get away with it even in court. What they didn't count on was the World Wildlife Fund having major backing including patronage from our royal family who have very deep pockets.
Yeah, PC users generally have a hard time understanding that the computer hardware & software are sold as one product by Apple. You're buying a computer that works. No product activation to worry about, no buck passing and finger pointing when you need support.
:P
There is also no such thing as a "full version" of Mac OS like Windows. All boxed copies are upgrades to whatever you got when you bought it. Mac users tend to forget that when they complain about upgrade prices - why isn't there an ungrade price, why do i have to pay full price? er you are buying the upgrade
Time is a big factor here, as the article says they've got to finish it by the 1st October for them to enter the super computer rankings for this year.
So although a cluster of X-Serves would make more sense they can't really wait.
You are right, but this is Microsoft we are talking about here. There will probably be an exploit to be found in the auto-updater and hey-presto they will have just added another way for hackers to get malicious code onto a user's machine without the user knowing.
What's it with people and car analogies?
:P
For it to be a good analogy to the IT world there would be many car manufacturers but they'd all get their steering wheels, gearshifts, engine and power train from one one company. One car manufacture would choose to make the entire thing all themselves, and a large dispersed team of engineers would be building their own steering wheels, gearshifts, engine and power train in their spare time 'cos they didn't like the "standard" one.
It just doesn't fit
As one of only 2 PC companies making any money right now I don't understand what you mean.
Oh unless his Steveness is turning himself in to the undead? Wouldn't have to ever stop running Apple then and the reality distortion field can hide the gaunt flesh :P
I swear half the reason I hang out on Slashdot is because of the amusing clueless things people like this guy say.
LCDs are still sensitive to the position of the viewer which can cause problems if you are in an environment where colour is really important. There is still a market for highend CRTs.
[rant]
:P)
This apparently needs pointing out for those that can't see what I'd assumed was blindingly obvious.
Firstly I wasn't denying that OS X is non-free. I was arguing that the majority of the OS was free (APSL issues aside), which was in contradiction to what you said.
Also the comparison to Redhat was me working with the example already given. Now as for saying it's a flawed comparison that ties in quite nicely with why I think Apple is keeping Quartz non-free.
By keeping the graphical layer of the OS proprietary Apple can control what hardware it runs on. (they also probably didn't want to give MS any help in catching them up on this but that's a side point)
If the entire OS were free then the first thing the open source community would do is port it to Intel and all those commodity boxen. Then we could all watch Apple's hardware sales go down the toilet and become practically a software only company. There's practically no profit to be made in hardware these days unless you're selling huge volume or adding value somehow (like an easy to use, reliable OS for example
With much lower hardware sales (see Apple's experience with the cloning experience as to what would happen) and having no direct control over the OS just how different would Apple be from Redhat given your scenario of a totally free OS X?
I would go as far as saying that Apple still exists because of the symbiotic relationship between the hardware and the OS.
-Plug and Pray on the PC isn't as good as the Mac not because MS don't have as talented engineers, it's mainly because of all the cheap crappy hardware options that have to be supported under Windows. Sometimes less options can be an advantage.
-Apple are able to either bring new technologies to market quicker or exploit and popularise them because they control both hardware and software: software power management, WiFi, Bluetooth, USB (with USB some PCs may have had them before Apple, but practically no-one used it as a connection technology before the iMac)
"Even if Apple was just a software company, why would they need to have the same number of developers? It's only natural that with free software time isn't spent on reinventing the wheel and there's some less work for programmers to do. You don't determine the viability of a business model with the number of employees needed, do you?"
So your message to the Apple shareholders would be: We're going to throw in the towel, practically write off our hardware business and cull our software team since we'll be selling very little apart from support contracts and a few CDs (all the work our programmers do we intend to just give away) So we'll need far less people. So let's just make 10,000 people redundant (and in this economic climate, what's another 10,000 unemployed). We can't guarantee we're going to make more money like this, in fact chances are we won't but at least our OS will be totally free and we'll have stopped a portion of the Open Source community bitching at us.
Sound ridiculous? That's because the suggestion was.
[/rant]
You have a funny idea of what constitutes the "vast majority" of an OS if you reckon that most of Apple's OS is closed.
/ fact_sheet.html). How long do you reckon that business model is going to support a company with ~12,000 employees? (http://news.com.com/2100-1040_3-978535.html, those are 2001 figures - I can't be bothered to look through Apple's SEC filings to find out exactly how many employees they currently have)
Most of it is in fact open source, Darwin is a complete OS in it's own right. What Apple have chosen not to release into open source is their window client/server Quartz which is understandable if you ask me and a whole load of Apps that ship with the commercial OS which aren't actually part of the OS iTunes, iMovie, etc. The other notable exception that springs to mind is QuickTime, but that would be pretty useless anyway unless the community licensed the Sorensen and MPEG4 codecs used to play and create it's content.
Now maybe you think that Apple can survive like Redhat, the whole PC market in this case only supports that company of ~600 employees (http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/presskit
Now maybe you're just a troll or maybe you're just an impulse poster. Sometimes I wish people would think a little before they post.
I used to sit behind a mac all day as a sys admin. Chatted a lot, drank way too much coffee and played games most of the time. I'd go home and do something else on and odd occasion tinker with my mac for a bit.
Then I made the mistake of taking a job with PCs which paid more money. One of my home macs now lives on my work desk and is the only thing there keeping me sane. There's been talk about disallowing me use of my own machine at work. If this actually happens I'll think i'll start looking for another job.
Incidentally I do have an Ultra Sparc 30 at home also, which if I have the urge to tinker with something gets switched on. Mostly though it along with the PCs at work serves to remind me why I'll never buy anything that isn't at least as good as an Apple.
Considering their excellent articles on the G4, G4e, and now the 970. And also on the Mac OS X finder I think many people would disagree with you.
You should check who actually writes the articles and hangs out on the forums there and what they do.Many of them are engineers, there are those involved in processor design and also programmers and not small fry either. (Check out the about box in Photoshop then look for Chris Cox at ars he can tell you a thing or two about optimising stuff for altivec and the bandwidth constraints of the old PowerMacs), then take the time catch up on the Perpetual CPU thread GPUL and look at all the analysis done that when Hannibal was able to actually speak to IBM turned out to be almost spot on
Yeah the signal to noise ratio gets pretty low sometimes but it's pretty much self policing and without a moderation system too. There is no doubting that Ars tends to attract a more knowledgable person.
As for being biased Ars, like Slashdot is a hang out for technical peeps, and the old Mac OS didn't register on their radar except as perhaps a thing to make fun of. Things change, the Mac is now interesting to geeks. It may not do what we all want but you can't deny it has an attraction to pull it to pieces and see what makes it tick.
If Apple hadn't stopped their cloning experiments which where at the time killing their own hardware sales then it's questionable whether Apple would still be here.
And we then we wouldn't have had Mac OS X. No Mac OS X, no darwin.
You have a valid point for most geeks, what's the point of using it over Linux or BSD.
One thing I will point out though is that it is a real boon having that entire layer of the OS open if your job is writing things like kext's and device drivers.
Apple Care is essentially an extended warranty with a few frills (good service and extra user technical support). My sister has AppleCare as our local LEA bought it for her with the computer and has found them very helpful
But in the UK even after the manufacturers warranty has expired normally after a year the retailer is liable should your computer develop a fault within 6 years (5 in Scotland) of purchase. This makes all extended warranties here pretty much a total waste of money.
Check out some of the info online. If you have this sort of problem in the UK you can get your local trading standards officer involved too.
http://www.consumereducation.org.uk/laws/english/I remember reading this too, it could have been from Dave Hyatt's 'blog but I can't be sure. As a source of info on Safari it's reliability is as good as anything direct from Apple him being one of the Safari code team et. al.
The only reason I can think of is for visual HTML editors. They could embed both frameworks for previewing pages without having to load a separate browser.
The machine is an old compaq deskpro with the original slim-line CD drive in it. Can't look at the exact info on the internals until I'm back into work and able to take the lid off it again. It's old and crap but it's what I've been given to work with.
.NET offers along this line of things but I'd rather just not go there.
What I'm trying to do is switch over to OO for web dev. The amount of extra work we are making for our selves by not having it is getting silly. Even with some code separated out into libraries it's still procedural and it's still prone to spaghettification as projects evolve. We are developing full blown apps that use a browser front end.
The only options I know of make use of Java: Apache + Tomcat (or other object container)
Even Web Objects is now java-based.
I'm not sure what
How is this rated insightful?
That's an awful lot of poise to throw around. Your logic appears to be backwards. Companies don't choose to buy NT servers and as a result buy Windows based clients.
Companies buy windows machines to run the apps they feel they need and then buy the most appropriate server to look after them.
Getting open office up to scratch will do more for getting Linux used widespread in businesses than anything else you list.
Also getting your OS used in the server space is not a great overall strategy for growth of that platform as a workstation if as you say the server can serve anything you want.
At work I use PCs and finally persuaded my manager to let me have a box to put Linux or BSD on to use as a platform to test "new" web technologies (that would be Apache 2, Tomcat/Catalina etc) and hopefully show them it's a good way forward to migrate from Windows/IIS as a web development platform.
Now at home I use Mac OS X, and I set this stuff up on my laptop in minutes so I know this all works.
So far I've spent nearly two days trying to install a free UNIX disto on this damn thing. Red Hat 7 (old I know but we had the CDs already) no joy, FreeBSD 5 no luck there either. Slackware 8.1 installs but the JVM download from SUN doesn't work on it and there's no source to compile yourself. RedHat 9 fails to recognise my CD drive, fails to install over ethernet.
This is crap. So far my experience with Linux has been worse than with Windows. If I had the authority to write company cheques and other people in the company weren't so up microsoft's ass I'd get a Mac to use as a server. And this is a company with over 25,000 employees. I can tell you that this experience so far is only going to seal them up even more. If this doesn't work out then they'll follow MS to it's eventual grave, they may even get there first.
Over the past 12 months I've grown to hate the small group of the Linux using population for whom Linux is "just about to stomp over everything, any day now". They've become more irritating than the equally small number of old vocal Mac zealots. But at least they truly have something to sound off about now.
Point is Mac OS X is not doing any major damage to Microsoft's bottom line and nor is Linux.
I think we all realise here that Microsoft can't sustain itself indefinitely doing business the way it is but it's a huge company, it's not going to be quick and it's not going to go quietly.
If you want to know what's gonna happen to all those old CDs:
A few weeks from now, Adobe Premier drinks costers will be in wide use around the Apple campus.
They didn't improve it. It's actually a step backwards. The original Blue and White G3 towers and Graphite G4 towers had the best casing design for access. The entire motherboard was mounted on the side that folded down like a trapdoor. It was also securable with a padlock through a bolt at the back.
The new G5 tower is a move back to the motherboard being on the opposite side meaning you have to bury your hands in a box full of components like your average "easy" access PC case.